You're Hired!: The New World Of Hiring Nurses??
- page 3

I was reading another thread and related to this topic.
It seems as though the days of graduating from nursing school and easily finding a job in any speciality (or one of your choice) are long...
Read More

Healthcare is big business and they are trying to make the hiring process as scientific as possible to pick the perfect candidate. My first degree is in psych, and Ive taken industrial psych courses where I learned that all these surveys are all very scientific, based on complicated statistics, which track how long candidate A with this experience, answering these questions this way will last here. I dont think it's right to subject a nurse who went through all the schooling, nclex, and years of experience to questions such as " I like to be the life of the party" slightly disagree or strongly agree. It's ridiculous, dont we all try to answer questions like these how we think they want us to answer these questions anyways? As I have seen it, people hire people they know, or who worked in the facility as an aide before they got their license. It shouldnt be about who you know but what you know, this is people's lives on the line and I would hope that the rn knows what she's doing.

If it really WERE that simple. It isn't. Managing a nursing staff isn't just about finding a "good nurse". It's also about finding a great employee. You don't just drop a "good nurse" into the mix when there is so much else to consider in how well that person will mesh with the rest of the team, and whether that person would be considered for long-term employment (and, therefore, long-term investment in time and expense).

When there are so many to choose from, why should the employer limit himself/herself in determining who DOES have the best interpersonal skills, the best reaction time, poise, professional demeanor, and so on?

What makes you so certain that the techniques in question yield the best employees? Do you have objective data to support your seeming certainty? Or is it just a feel-good way for the employer to winnow down a large pool of applicants?

Do you think it's possible that the use of some psychometric tests lead to systematic and unfair discrimination against certain groups? Yes? No? How do you know?

Just another note on the personality test...they must be all the rage in HR these days. I've applied to many teaching jobs that required the test and some biology tech jobs. Even a few retail jobs. It's frustrating because you what answer they want and they keep asking you the same questions. It's mostly a blend of being honest with knowing what they want and that's sorta like being in an interview. You need not say what you shouldn't say and say things they want to hear.

I mean really...who is going to honestly say that they don't enjoy working with others or only sometimes enjoy it if they want a job. I'm very honest. I've never been accused of sugarcoating, but getting a job isn't an honest process. This goes for the role of the interviewee as well as the interviewer. Gotta have a poker face I guess

I do not entirely dislike the what would you do questions, but I don't think they should be scored by a person and most certainly not someone in HR who has no nursing background. These types of questions should be left to a computer where the test cannot be subjective and held to bias.

the EEOC needs to come up with some guidelines for the hiring process. Certain questions should be excluded from behavioral tests if not get rid of behavioral tests altogether. Employers can come up with better ways to find the right employee, they're just being lazy now and letting computers do it for them, you have HR departments, use them!

I do not entirely dislike the what would you do questions, but I don't think they should be scored by a person and most certainly not someone in HR who has no nursing background. These types of questions should be left to a computer where the test cannot be subjective and held to bias.

Tests are written by humans, so any measuring of personality is going to be subjective even if it's scored by a computer. So they're giving you a numeric score now instead of an "eh," "definitely not," "maybe" or "yes." Either way, you are being judged and scored by an interviewer and that is nothing new.

The job application process isn't objective. It never has been. Personality tests are just the current fad in screening applications; they're not part of a massive sea change in hiring practices.

What makes you so certain that the techniques in question yield the best employees? Do you have objective data to support your seeming certainty? Or is it just a feel-good way for the employer to winnow down a large pool of applicants?

Do you think it's possible that the use of some psychometric tests lead to systematic and unfair discrimination against certain groups? Yes? No? How do you know?

Something tells me that introverts don't fare overly well... Those are good questions. I'd be interested to see studies

What makes you so certain that the techniques in question yield the best employees? Do you have objective data to support your seeming certainty? Or is it just a feel-good way for the employer to winnow down a large pool of applicants?

Do you think it's possible that the use of some psychometric tests lead to systematic and unfair discrimination against certain groups? Yes? No? How do you know?

I have no data, and it's not a certainty on my part. I've taken these tests myself in the past, they are not in the LEAST BIT new, as I took them decades ago. Not online, but with a pen and paper. And I thought them silly at the time, too. And then, after time has passed, I wondered if it didn't weed out those people who the test revealed were less likely to succeed at whatever job was being assessed? I don't know.

Personally, I don't use the tools as outlined in this thread when I hire. I don't find I need to; I have a small staff and when an occasional per diem or occasional part-timer, whatever becomes needed, I simply "ask around" until I find people I want to interview who want to BE interviewed. And that's not a new process to me, so...it works.

But my initial response to this thread was because I do object to the idea that people aren't or SHOULDN'T be judged from the moment they submit the first piece of paper, every telephone interview, etc. The "little did I know I was being judged" thinking surprises me, because of COURSE you are being judged on things that go outside of whether the applicant has told the interviewer "I'm a great nurse!". Well, no kidding. Show me an applicant who doesn't already believe himself/herself to be a great nurse, or who doesn't STATE this very obvious assertion when trying to get a job.

I also believe that some of these tests may, indeed, lead to an unfair judging of an individual's suitability. I also believe that since ALL applicants are subject to these same tests, isn't the playing field once again leveled (this, assumes of course that the job in question requires these tests)? Again, reflecting on my own experiences many years ago. I needed to go through a battery of tests for security-clearance positions, and I was asked things that made me go "HUH?!". But....I guess what I don't know about the psychological profiling, etc on those tests didn't hurt, as I did get hired.

of course you're being judged, the interview started the moment you are within sights of the company property. Everyone notices you the outsider standing outside, or walking in looking slightly lost, the security you signed in at already assessed your potential as a threat, his impression of your character, the receptionist looked at how you're dressed, walked, talked and treat her, various other curious people probably came over to look and interact with you. I even had a lady slip and crash in to something just around the corner. So I did what normal people did jumped up, ran over to see if she was ok. You don't know who's who perhaps some of those pysch tests were already being administered except instead of by paper they put you in the scenario, have people interact with you and they watch and grade you. OK that might have been over thinking it but most definitely people will talk afterwards about you the candidate even if they are not part of the interviewing panel so treat everyone with courtesy and respect. I agree pysch tests only go so far and we should not be judged based on our performance on those. I felt that my interviewer was less into tests and prefered to use a more a hands on method of scenarios, roleplay, interactions to test me on those personality profile questions and etc skills test. so it worked out well had it been a paper and pen test I'd probably flunked it from second guessing myself. Anyways I think key to interviewing sucessfuly is the ability to connect on the same wavelenght as the employer, be competent, personable, willingness to learn and genuinely want the job. Everything else can be taught, they know you're a new grad and won't know one end of something from the next.

If you are someone who has an "in" for a job, you will find often that you are directed to "formally" apply online at a designated time (usually a half hour window, on an off hour for the site). This allows the employer to post the job publicly to meet requirements, but limit the responses, and allows HR to tag you and "let you in". In this type of situation, nobody cares about the psych test because as they say "honey, you gonna pass it with flying colors". I have been told of this by people who were hired in this way, and I have also monitored this very thing happening. The said job posting will disappear after that half hours time as if it never was posted. If you are to rush one of those postings and apply during that window yourself because you literally saw it as soon as it posted, you will either receive a "job closed" or instant rejection email. You might even receive a "fail" on the test.

That is exactly right. We are not suppose to make any educated decisions or nursing descretions. WE are ROBOTS. YES, MASTER, AS YOU WISH MASTER. OK MASTER. Hey, it sounds like 1849 all over again. We are slaves to the political game of Health care.

Really, If a company wanted to retain their personnel then when something is lodged against the RN it should be thoroughly investigated by a private company. Not your boss or another manager. If you are good with staff and patients, and another employee is jealous of you or your position anything may happen. Especially, if one has been working in a company for 4 years and all of a sudden a new employee comes in and starts making accusations. I would be looking at the newcomer instead of the long time employee. Interpersonal skills my aunt patudie. give me a break. You are being ridiculous.